I tend to only power it up when I want to play the games I have there so I kinda worked around the clunky/slow bit. I have yet to experience it being intrusive.I see the having a single account to manage as the best argument against all these different systems.

I do however see the for the individual developer/publisher to control access to their content. And I am afterall not upset that I cant long on league of legends through steam.

Oh, it's not that I have an issue managing the millions of various MMO accounts and the like that I have, that's fair enough. I simply don't like the idea of managing simultaneous digital libraries across multiple digital platforms.

I know I bought that game, which service was it on again? Steam? Windows Live? Origin? Ubisoft's platform? GoG?

You get the idea. And like I said, the instant they tried to access my private information that was unrelated to their service, they instantly earned a spot in my blacklist. I won't be installing Origin again.

I must sound like I have a vendetta against EA sometimes. I love many of the games they publish. It's only in this last year they've really done a lot to drive me away. Hopefully they'll set themselves straight in the years to come.

No going through you browser history is a valid concern. Now I know that Origin goes through your files in order to find games that you bought on other platforms and add them to your Origin library. A direct example would be when I bought Dark Spore on Steam and it automatically adding it to my Origin account.

The main problem about the Origin complaints is that the legit ones get buried in a mountain of bullshit because some were upset that there were day one DLC to title X.

As of now I try to organise my games the best way possible and I see the need for publisher to control how their stuff gets distributed and controlled cross more of their games (something as simple as linking my Starcraft achievement to my mate playing WoW is a little cool).

VanQQisH:Thanks for clearing all that up. Now if I could just install the game without having to reinstall Origin, I'd buy it because the game looks great and I do want to play it. I really don't want to have to play it on my PS3 but if I see it in the bargain bin I may pick it up down the line.

Oh, can I play split screen or do I have to have an online pass to play the co-op? This isn't a deal breaker for me as I prefer Dead Space solo but it could be a fun game to play split screen with a mate down the line if I grab the PS3 version.

It's not split screen. I have it on the PS3 though, and I find that it's fine. What's your beef with it?

Anywho...I don't even know of any recent games that even do split screen anymore. Tis an artifact of the past, I guess.

Kopikatsu:To be honest, I really wish people would stop complaining about DS3's microtransactions because if a publisher demands that they be added (something the developers have no say in), I would very much prefer that they're done like DS3.

And I'd rather have people be very vocal about this because monetizing one-time-use cheat codes is something we do NOT want to become standard practice in singleplayer games.Besides, you just said it's basically 100% pointless and even harmful to the natural flow of the game and I agree. Such is the nature of cheats. So why should people not complain about something that is, at best, pointless and can only get worse from there?

What is it with that "I wish people stopped complaining" attitude?

I can't see why people like you just have to stick up for the consumer. What the fuck has the consumer ever done for you? Life gets a lot better when you stop complaining, stop thinking and just leave it all in the hands of the might corporation who only has your best in mind.

OT: I haven't played the game myself and I have no interest to do so. I don't really have a problem with this as long as it's completely optional, but I don't like the direction this is headed. This might stop at this and it might not become a bigger deal than it is, but it might turn bad.

I already had most of my concerns about DS3 resolved just by watching videos, but I'm still wondering about this. What is the difference between classic and normal aiming?

'Normal' aiming gives you a crosshair. Classic aiming gives your guns a laser sight based on it's function, like Dead Space 1 and 2. For example, the Line Gun has three lights in a horizontal row while the Javelin Gun only has a single dot.

Aiming is a bit easier with Classic if you only have one weapon or weapons with a small number of lights. Trying to use Classic with a weapon that's like...Pulse Rifle on top of a Line Gun just gets crazy and jumbled.

Thanks for clearing this up, OP; I was on the fence over whether or not to get this game because of the DLC shitstorm.

On the actual topic of micro-transactions, I only start taking an issue when developers start charging for stuff that used to be free in games. This doesn't include shortcuts like the resource packs described here, because it doesn't prevent the players who don't pay from achieving the same results with a little more effort.

I start taking issue when games like Arkham City decide to charge exorbitant prices for the different Batsuits when, in the old days, you would have unlocked these bonuses by completing challenges. The re-skins add nothing to the actual gameplay experience: they're just a con for nostalgic fools like me who have too much money.

It's the difference between paying for a (slight) advantage and just flat-out exploiting the consumer.

Okay, I am NOT buying DS3 full price as a matter of principle, and perhaps not at all (ever) due to what they have put into the game as far as microtransactions and such. That said I have been following what's been being said about the game and the results of playing it heavily to find out what the deal is, and the OP seems to be more or less wrong on most accounts, except for the very valid point that EA hasn't been disguising this, so if you bought DS3 you have no real right to be complaining about the Microtransactions and EA DLC practices which are somewhat differant (though related) issues. If you had a problem with this, then you should have done what I did, and not bought the game, if you have a problem with it and are playing DS3 right now after having purchused it, you kind of just shot yourself in the foot.

That said, the reality of the situation with the microtransactions is that they are telling the truth that the game can be completed without them. They do not amount to an invulnerable, wall-shaped necromorph with a card reader blocking your progress until you pay it money in an absolute sense.

The reality is that resources are scarce enough in the game where if you don't pay them money you will be able to upgrade your stuff, but never as much or as frequently as you'd like to, and will generally feel like your at least one or two steps down from where you should be, especially during the mid-late portions of the game, assuming an average player.

The last part is what makes this important to understand. You hear such divergent stories because of differant people's level of abillity. The guy who is beating the game on the most insane difficulty level a few days after it's release is not your typical player. There is a world of differance between him, and say the guy that inspired bits like the old "Critical Miss" strip (I think it was CM) with a mind-worm bursting out of a wall and terrifying the player the first time, before the guy dies 20 times in the nearby fight and gets into a habit of exchanging strategy advice with it as he walks past to die again (it no longer being scary) which is a more typical experience for players, on a lower level of difficulty (and why the strip is funny, the theme being jump scares losing their impact and becoming annoying when placed before frequently used respawn points). To your typical player of low to middling skill, who is not optimizing their gear perfectly with a good grasp of strategy and tactics, those microtransaction boosts become increasingly nessicary. Used your upgrades the wrong way? Fight too tough? Instead of trading strategy with a mind worm, the EA microtransactor is there to help.

The bottom line is that if it was entirely pointless and something nobody feel compelled to use, it wouldn't be there. EA did their research and was pretty insidious, using a similar mentality to other FTP games and such. Sure, the really good players won't ever really go for a crutch like this, but the lesser players that outnumber them? They will succumb to that temptation. Rather than balancing the game for multiple skill levels, it's easier to give a "pay to win" option directed at the easily frustrated masses that make up the majority of the players.

As a result you will find many people cursing that the game virtually requires microtransactions, they were the target for it after all, and others vocally insisting that the game doesn't, and they were able to (due to planning, experience, and skill) beat the game "easily" without really having to worry about resources or exploit any kind of respawning loot points and "grind". If it was never an issue, nobody would have been tempted to look for what they thiught were exploits, or seen it becoming a moral issue before EA said it wasn't one (and claims it was intended... which arguably still means it's a "patience for money" racket of the sort that drives Farmville games at it's most benevolent).

For those thinking about whether to get DS3 or not, here is my opinion based on what I've put together:

If your a really experienced Dead Space or TPS player, your not likely to need the microtransaction system. It might as well not even be there for you. Your not, and never were the target. If you struggled in the previous games, or just aren't good with the genere and want to play this one for the concept/atmosphere your far more likely to see it as a giant cash grab aimed at you.

At the end of the day if you haven't bought the game yet I recommend going without. Even if your good enough to be able to beat it without it becoming an issue, understand this is a test case. If Dead Space 3 succeeds with this gimmick, you'll see more of it in the future, and it will probably be more insidiously marketed to get both the hardcore and more casual players both.

Right now it seems there are a few people who thought they were good enough for it to not be an issue, who wound up buying the game, and pretty much feel like they are facing a moral conundrum as to whether they pay extra to finish their game comfortably, or just give up on it, and suck up having lost $60. As a result I tend to discourage people who think that they can buy the game to support Dead Space, but just avoid "The Microtransactor" and hope it not making any money will end the practice. Not only do I doubt EA looks at it as seperate things that way, but again, if it wasn't something placed so that they felt people would spend money on it, they never would have bothered, and that's the bottom line to begin. I suspect most people will wind up looking at that microtransaction system and doing some agonizing.

I am NOT buying DS3 full price as a matter of principle, and perhaps not at all

Then excuse me while I mark you as a questionable source while I mark the OP as a believable.

Would you believe my expertise on anything I havn't had my hands on?

Either way so far all sources I have found that actually played the game (even people who have been fully against the business practices from day one) echo what OP has written in everything that can be deemed observable fact. Opinions may vary.

I am NOT buying DS3 full price as a matter of principle, and perhaps not at all

Then excuse me while I mark you as a questionable source while I mark the OP as a believable.

Would you believe my expertise on anything I havn't had my hands on?

Either way so far all sources I have found that actually played the game (even people who have been fully against the business practices from day one) echo what OP has written in everything that can be deemed observable fact. Opinions may vary.

Depends on the situation.

You might think your being clever but a "catch-22" defense really carries very little weight. The idea that if you refuse to support something for being bad from any perspective (design, marketing, etc... depending on the product) invalidates your abillity to call it bad. Basically you must support something to be critical of it, or make any informed desicians or comments regarding it, which is inherantly stupid. Though I suppose if there are people who believe that in any numbers, it goes a long way towards explaining the continuing policies of Capcom, EA, Activision, and their ilk. After all, why bother to change if everyone calling them out is someone who pays for everything they release before QQing?

When it comes to "Dead Space 3", it's gotten enough attention and generated enough traffic accross literally hundreds of gaming forums to provide a wealth of information on specific subjects. While someone who has not played the game is not in a position to tell you specific strategies, builds, or techniques for actually playing the game, when it comes to things like the effects the microtransaction system is having on the game within the gaming community overall, that's something anyone who follows it can tell you. Indeed when it comes to a "big picture" perspective like this, someone who actually plays the game knows LESS than someone who follows the information involving it. After all as a player you can only relay your experience, but with tons of people posting what's going on, the guy who listens to dozens or hundreds of reports on a subject like this knows more about the overall situation than some guy limited entirely by his own time playing and how it affected him.... though to be honest it IS possible to both play the game and gather information on it, but to some extent when discussing something like microtransactions which have little to do with the actual game play, someone who actually plays the game could be argued as a less reliable source when it comes to impartial analysis of something like that due to their overall perceptions of the experience clouding the central issue which has little to do with the experience the game provides overall, in this case focusing entirely on monetization and how it affected the player base as a whole.

If you'd bother to read what I said rather than dropping Catch-22 arguements, or indulging in sarcasm like another respondee, you'll notice that what I largely pointed out was that the OP is not the only one making such reports, but there are tons of other people saying the opposite (which he knows himself, but sets out to refute). I simply put things into perspective using the OP's own claims... after all if he really did what he claimed he by definition has defined himself as an abnormally skilled player and as such not someone who can evaluate the situation as it applies to the majority of players. His own skill inherantly blinding him to how something like this effects the masses, or the situations he's refuting play out differantly by the abillities of the player.

Now granted, I get why people want to defend "Dead Space 3" against any and all criticism, using any method no matter how ridiculous. To many people defending it, they prioritize the survival of a favorite IP over the proliferation of a Microtransaction system, especially if they personally happen to be skilled enough where it does not currently effect them. That however does not properly represent the situation.

Simply put I, and people like me, are the best source someone has when it comes to the subject of the Microtransaction system. Barring wanting to read hundreds of reports from differant forums on the subject themselves. People might not like it, but it's simply THE TRUTH! :)

Indeed when it comes to a "big picture" perspective like this, someone who actually plays the game knows LESS than someone who follows the information involving it.

This just may be one of the worst arguments I've ever heard - "Someone with personal experience with something is less knowledgeable about it/less qualified to judge it than someone who merely listens to what other people say about it."

I am NOT buying DS3 full price as a matter of principle, and perhaps not at all

Then excuse me while I mark you as a questionable source while I mark the OP as a believable.

Would you believe my expertise on anything I havn't had my hands on?

Either way so far all sources I have found that actually played the game (even people who have been fully against the business practices from day one) echo what OP has written in everything that can be deemed observable fact. Opinions may vary.

Depends on the situation.

You might think your being clever but a "catch-22" defense really carries very little weight. The idea that if you refuse to support something for being bad from any perspective (design, marketing, etc... depending on the product) invalidates your abillity to call it bad. Basically you must support something to be critical of it, or make any informed desicians or comments regarding it, which is inherantly stupid. Though I suppose if there are people who believe that in any numbers, it goes a long way towards explaining the continuing policies of Capcom, EA, Activision, and their ilk. After all, why bother to change if everyone calling them out is someone who pays for everything they release before QQing?

When it comes to "Dead Space 3", it's gotten enough attention and generated enough traffic accross literally hundreds of gaming forums to provide a wealth of information on specific subjects. While someone who has not played the game is not in a position to tell you specific strategies, builds, or techniques for actually playing the game, when it comes to things like the effects the microtransaction system is having on the game within the gaming community overall, that's something anyone who follows it can tell you. Indeed when it comes to a "big picture" perspective like this, someone who actually plays the game knows LESS than someone who follows the information involving it. After all as a player you can only relay your experience, but with tons of people posting what's going on, the guy who listens to dozens or hundreds of reports on a subject like this knows more about the overall situation than some guy limited entirely by his own time playing and how it affected him.... though to be honest it IS possible to both play the game and gather information on it, but to some extent when discussing something like microtransactions which have little to do with the actual game play, someone who actually plays the game could be argued as a less reliable source when it comes to impartial analysis of something like that due to their overall perceptions of the experience clouding the central issue which has little to do with the experience the game provides overall, in this case focusing entirely on monetization and how it affected the player base as a whole.

If you'd bother to read what I said rather than dropping Catch-22 arguements, or indulging in sarcasm like another respondee, you'll notice that what I largely pointed out was that the OP is not the only one making such reports, but there are tons of other people saying the opposite (which he knows himself, but sets out to refute). I simply put things into perspective using the OP's own claims... after all if he really did what he claimed he by definition has defined himself as an abnormally skilled player and as such not someone who can evaluate the situation as it applies to the majority of players. His own skill inherantly blinding him to how something like this effects the masses, or the situations he's refuting play out differantly by the abillities of the player.

Now granted, I get why people want to defend "Dead Space 3" against any and all criticism, using any method no matter how ridiculous. To many people defending it, they prioritize the survival of a favorite IP over the proliferation of a Microtransaction system, especially if they personally happen to be skilled enough where it does not currently effect them. That however does not properly represent the situation.

Simply put I, and people like me, are the best source someone has when it comes to the subject of the Microtransaction system. Barring wanting to read hundreds of reports from differant forums on the subject themselves. People might not like it, but it's simply THE TRUTH! :)

It is simply THE TRUTH, as long as I dont define TRUTH as observable fact since you admit to not observing it.

Unless actually play the game what you are define as truth I define as opinion based on second hand information. And I can already do that myself. You are a questionable source in that. The Op isn't.

Indeed when it comes to a "big picture" perspective like this, someone who actually plays the game knows LESS than someone who follows the information involving it.

And this is why I ask non-doctors to give me medical advice because they follow more information on it....

GOD! I dont even.... how the fuck do I even begin to disarm something like that? Does logic not apply where you come from? Someone with less experience with the actual game has more knowledge with the actual game?

What you are doing is an argument from authority.

Simply put I, and people like me, are the best source someone has when it comes to the subject of the Microtransaction system.

No my friend. You are the worst kind of source. You are a third party source. You havn't actually got experience. You have urban legends.

EDIT: god every time I look at your post I find a new logical fallacyYou got personal incredulity in there as well. It would take me a week to break down the utter amount of bullshit here.

Sorry but why is it there? It's like Nintendo putting a microtransaction system into Mario so you can pay for more lives. You don't have to, but the option is there. is it a con? Yes. Is it there to rake in a bit more money? Yes.

Hannya:For me it's not that they force you to use it. It's that it's there.

Sorry but why is it there? It's like Nintendo putting a microtransaction system into Mario so you can pay for more lives. You don't have to, but the option is there. is it a con? Yes. Is it there to rake in a bit more money? Yes.

Well yeah it is there to rake in a bit more money.

This may come as surprise to you, but Nintendo didn't make Super Mario just because they love you. They made it because they knew you would pay for it. They sold you 60$ (assuming standard pricing here) and they gave you what they justify as 60$ worth of game. EA Made a game the same way and put a 60$ price tag on it and gave what they justified as a 60$ game. Then they then put in a shop in case you had more money to spend. Still doesn't change what they put into the 60$ game. If the game contains 60$ worth of game and doesn't require an additional purchase to play (through game mechanics) then I just dont see the issue.

If the game itself required more investment to be playable then we are talking an issue of them camouflaging the price. Now that is a whole different kettle of fish and that is bad.

Hannya:For me it's not that they force you to use it. It's that it's there.

Sorry but why is it there? It's like Nintendo putting a microtransaction system into Mario so you can pay for more lives. You don't have to, but the option is there. is it a con? Yes. Is it there to rake in a bit more money? Yes.

Well yeah it is there to rake in a bit more money.

This may come as surprise to you, but Nintendo didn't make Super Mario just because they love you. They made it because they knew you would pay for it. They sold you 60$ (assuming standard pricing here) and they gave you what they justify as 60$ worth of game. EA Made a game the same way and put a 60$ price tag on it and gave what they justified as a 60$ game. Then they then put in a shop in case you had more money to spend. Still doesn't change what they put into the 60$ game. If the game contains 60$ worth of game and doesn't require an additional purchase to play (through game mechanics) then I just dont see the issue.

If the game itself required more investment to be playable then we are talking an issue of them camouflaging the price. Now that is a whole different kettle of fish and that is bad.

The difference is that Nintendo aren't dicks about it.

They didn't sit there and say "let's get more money from these people because we can".

Hannya:For me it's not that they force you to use it. It's that it's there.

Sorry but why is it there? It's like Nintendo putting a microtransaction system into Mario so you can pay for more lives. You don't have to, but the option is there. is it a con? Yes. Is it there to rake in a bit more money? Yes.

Well yeah it is there to rake in a bit more money.

This may come as surprise to you, but Nintendo didn't make Super Mario just because they love you. They made it because they knew you would pay for it. They sold you 60$ (assuming standard pricing here) and they gave you what they justify as 60$ worth of game. EA Made a game the same way and put a 60$ price tag on it and gave what they justified as a 60$ game. Then they then put in a shop in case you had more money to spend. Still doesn't change what they put into the 60$ game. If the game contains 60$ worth of game and doesn't require an additional purchase to play (through game mechanics) then I just dont see the issue.

If the game itself required more investment to be playable then we are talking an issue of them camouflaging the price. Now that is a whole different kettle of fish and that is bad.

The difference is that Nintendo aren't dicks about it.

They didn't sit there and say "let's get more money from these people because we can".

But they cant get more money from me....

That is the point.... it is as optional as buying a Super Mario hat. I dont need to buy it to enjoy it, but I can. And dont give me the "Its not the same as merchandising on the success of a product" because it really is.

This may come as surprise to you, but Nintendo didn't make Super Mario just because they love you. They made it because they knew you would pay for it. They sold you 60$ (assuming standard pricing here) and they gave you what they justify as 60$ worth of game. EA Made a game the same way and put a 60$ price tag on it and gave what they justified as a 60$ game. Then they then put in a shop in case you had more money to spend. Still doesn't change what they put into the 60$ game. If the game contains 60$ worth of game and doesn't require an additional purchase to play (through game mechanics) then I just dont see the issue.

If the game itself required more investment to be playable then we are talking an issue of them camouflaging the price. Now that is a whole different kettle of fish and that is bad.

The difference is that Nintendo aren't dicks about it.

They didn't sit there and say "let's get more money from these people because we can".

But they cant get more money from me....

That is the point.... it is as optional as buying a Super Mario hat. I dont need to buy it to enjoy it, but I can.

That's the con. I don't think you understand...

If I were to sell Super Mario, people would just buy Super Mario.

If I were to sell Super Mario and allow people to buy Fire Flowers, something that can be gained in game without paying for them. Naive people will pay for them.